Why did Cameron crack the whip over circus animals?

“The Government will recognise the will of the House.” Downing Street, 24 June, 2011

Cathy Newman checks it out

No wonder David Cameron joked today he’d send in the clowns. After the Government prepared yet another U-turn – this time on circus animals – some crowd-pleasing, diversionary tactics were exactly what the Prime Minister needed. But is all as it seems? Will Ministers recognise the will of the House? Or is a ban on wild animals performing in British circuses still some way off? I’ve been inside the Government’s Big Top to find out.

The analysis

After one Tory MP after another stood up to back Labour’s call for a ban on wild animals in the circus, Downing Street briefed that it would “recognise the will of the House”.

The Government had wanted a licensing regime for circus animals, not a ban. Many of its MPs disagreed. They were delighted when it looked as if they’d got their way.

But the Conservative rebels are now worried that the morning after the night before, the Government is U-turning on the U-turn.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs now says it will “listen” to Parliament – a slightly vaguer commitment than recognising the will of the House. A spokeswoman said tonight: “The Government will listen to the view of the House and is sympathetic to the motion for a ban. We will continue to look carefully at how this could be introduced, but there are unavoidable legal difficulties that we cannot ignore.”

That phrase “unavoidable legal difficulties” is a reference to a long-standing warning from Defra that a total ban could be challenged in the European courts.

That’s been dismissed as scaremongering by supporters of the ban, who embarrassed the Environment Secretary, Caroline Spelman, last week by exposing a factual error she made in front of the Commons.

She told MPs that a legal challenge was underway in Austria, but Junior Minister Jim Paice was forced to come back before MPs and admit that the case she was referring to was not in fact an active one.

Stretching our GCSE German to its limits, FactCheck contacted the Austrian Constitutional Court and we discovered that a case had been hastily filed within days of the row in Parliament being reported, so it’s technically true to say that there is a legal challenge to a national ban on circuses going through a European court.

But this is a case that has already been heard by the European Commission and the European Ombudsman and fallen flat. No date has even been set for a preliminary hearing in Austria.

The Defra spokeswoman added: “Our priority is the safety and well-being of animals. Given that a ban is not an immediate possibility, we will proceed with a tough licensing regime which will stop circuses from using these wild animals if they don’t provide very high welfare standards.”

That has incensed some of the Conservatives who are arguing so passionately for a ban. As FactCheck reported last night, Mark Pritchard stunned the Commons when he revealed how much pressure Downing Street had put him under to get him to toe the line. Tonight, he took another pop at what he and his colleagues believe is the arrogance of Number Ten.

He told FactCheck: “The decision to ban wild animals in circuses in England was voted through unanimously. The Prime Minister cannot discard the will of Parliament, which is the voice of the people, like it is some sort of public school debating chamber.

“Parliament is supreme – not the Executive. This is rapidly becoming a constitutional issue – not just an animal welfare issue.”

The bigger mystery though is why Downing Street was so desperate to get its way on an issue which affects so few. There are only around 40 wild animals performing in British circuses.

FactCheck revealed last night that Amazing Animals, a company which tames wild animals, is based in Mr Cameron’s Witney constituency. One of its directors, James Clubb, yesterday denied he had met the PM. But tonight we can reveal that the PM has met his wife, Sally Chipperfield, who is also a director of the company.

Mr Cameron’s spokeswoman told FactCheck: “The Prime Minister has a lady in his constituency who has an interest in animals. He has not had a meeting with her since becoming Prime Minister.”

The spokeswoman declined to say when Mr Cameron had last met her.

Ms Chipperfield is a big name in circus circles. Chipperfield’s was a famous British circus dynasty, going back centuries.

Ms Chipperfield was a circus proprietor – although she now supplies beasts to the TV and film industry not the circus.

FactCheck has also learned of another link between Amazing Animals and the Conservatives, though it’s one the party may choose to forget.

Back in 1997, when David Cameron was still a fresh-faced PR executive, the Tories drafted in a lion trained by James Clubb to feature in an advertising campaign.

More from Channel 4 FactCheck

0 reader comments

Batmandisays:

Good article; personally I feel the links between Chipperfield and Cameron are stronger than what they appear. He has no reason to not ban animals in circuses; Chipperfield doesn’t have anything to do with Circuses – or at least UK circuses (this could be where the issue arises), the UK Chipperfield Circuses were closed down in the late ’90’s after video footage showed Mr and Mrs Chipperfield and an employee beating animals – including elephants, tigers and Trudy the Chimp.
However, as the League against Cruel Sports put it, it could be to do with licensing the use of these animals which will aid the use of them in hunting and shooting events (involving all animals, not just exotic and domestic in circuses).
Really? How hard is it to implement a ban when your PM?? You just say it’s banned and sign a piece of paper, you make sure the animals all have somewhere to go, and ta dahh! done. Its easier when everyone else is in agreement, which they are. Theres just something about this that doesnt fit, and it falls down to dodgy dave and his dodgy dealings.

There is a definite smell of bull (or elephant) poo in the air. Dodgy Dave clearly has reasons for not wanting a ban that he is not willing to divulge.
I notice Mark Pritchard’s quote that “Parliament is supreme not the executive…” also indicated this is not the only issue on which the PM thinks he can ignore parliament and push through his own agenda. For a man who claims to like small government he certainly seems to like being the big boss fish in that ‘small’ pond. A highly arrogant way to go about running (or should i say ruining) a country.

I think this article raises some important points. The main one being that regardless of what Parliament decides, it is Europe that controls the laws of the UK. We cannot break wind without asking permission from the EU and I can only see the situation getting worse. This is just another example of too much control from Brussels, whether direct or implied. I think we should applaud Mark Pritchard for taking his stance, a rare case of selfishness that I hope gets the reward it deserves with a ban to soon follow. What arrogance the executive have shown when faced with the public’s, RSPCA’s and parliament’s distaste for animal cruelty. I say we play Europe at its own game and if we have to use a licence system, wrap it up in so much red tape, it’s impossible to get one.

What has happened to the EU Treaty “red lines” and “subsidiarity” that in the past have been made much of, and which entitle a member state of the EU to make its own laws re a matter specific to that nation’s social/conscience, etc.

I’d like to know what relation Mary Chipperfield (if still living) is to Sally Chipperfield, director of Amazing Animals (google in their website) – no address given but an Oxfordshire phone no. Mary Chipperfield was the one involved in the 90s cruelty case. Although Chipperfield Organisation carried on(firm in same line of business, i.e. providing animals for films) it has apparently been dissolved. I wonder if it was rebranded to Amazing Animals – thus getting rid of the discredited Chipperfield name.